Nope, I'm done arguing with you. It's a waste of both our time. If you want to cite some rules that say my answers to the situation in post #6 was wrong, feel free to do so. If you can find a foul called other than the technical foul that was called after the made basket in post #6, feel free to point that out also. Then maybe we can continue.

Nope, it's a question of whether the throw-in was legal or not. Case book play 6.4.1D states it was a legal throw-in and can't be changed, even though the throw-in was made in error. And the ONLY technical foul called in post #6 was the one called on the H coach AFTER the made 3-point shot.

The coach didn't do anything after the shot. How is the foul after the shot?

You might want to go back and read post #6......

No one is talking about that anymore. This is the situation.

You discussed that play and were arguing that the ball becomes dead when a foul is called, not when it occurs. Posts 24, 28, 30, 32, and 40 by you all address this play.

Now you just are pretending that Cameron's play doesn't even exist, probably because you realized how wrong the things you were saying were.

Once again you just ignore the existence of Cameron's play, which everyone is currently talking about, including you in 5 separate posts.

No one cares what post #6 says. No one is talking about that. Please stop pointing out what post #6 says because it doesn't matter.

And I notice that you totally ignored my request to post a citation about the time limit for foul to be called.

Gee, maybe because that's when the ONLY foul that was called in in post #6 was actually called?

No one cares what post #6 says. No one is talking about that. Please stop pointing out what post #6 says because it doesn't matter.

And I notice that you completely ignore my post asking if I have summarized your way of handling the situation correctly...how about you answer that?

If the technical was called for what the coach said at that point, the shot should count. My understanding what that the technical was for the preceding act of apparent deception for his team to get the throw-in. I actually have a problem with this theory.

What the hell??? Post #6 is exactly what we are talking about...the statements were made that the 3 point shot would not count because the Unsporting T - for deliberately making the throw-in that was not theirs - would somehow magically make the live ball dead before the shooter touched the throw-in. Even after the ball was shot and the basket made, we could cancel it because the T actually took place before the shot, even though it wasn't called. Those are the statements being made and they are based on the situation in post #6.

The ball is not dead when the foul is "actually called." The ball is dead when
"A foul, other than player- or team-control occurs." 6-7-7

JAR, see post #6. There was NO technical foul called before the made shot for an apparent deception to get an unwarranted throw-in. If someone wants to call a "T" for that AFTER the made shot, fine. You do have rules backing to do so. What there is absolutely NO rules backing for though is for anyone to retoactively call an unsporting "T" and then go back and void either the throw-in or the made 3-pointer. You can't retroactively make a ball that was legally live dead, as Camron is trying to claim(I think).

Um yeah. And can you find anywhere in the situation described in post #6 where a foul of ANY kind occurred BEFORE the made 3-pointer?

That's exactly what happens in 10.1.8. I realize the difference in the two situations, but the foul is "actually called" after the fact in both. If the shot is waved off in one, why would it not be waved off in the other?

Reading is fundamental. Post #6 is the exact play that Camron is talking about.